State v. Hartman
2013 Ohio 4407
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In May 2009 Matthew Hartman went to friends Kimberly and Al Leighton’s home after a heated altercation with his wife; he arrived on an ATV with a holstered gun. Police observed interactions and arrested him after Mr. Leighton had taken and unloaded Hartman’s gun.
- Hartman was indicted for aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(2)) alleging trespass with a deadly weapon and intent to commit an offense inside the residence.
- After a first trial resulting in conviction, this Court reversed based on prejudicial admission of a 911 call; Hartman was retried and again convicted and sentenced to five years.
- On second appeal Hartman raised numerous claims (18 assignments), including suppression/illegal arrest, double jeopardy, refusal to instruct on lesser-included offense, prosecutorial misconduct, jury unanimity, spousal privilege, evidentiary errors, and sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence.
- The Ninth District sustained Hartman’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct for inflammatory and improper remarks during closing (particularly rebuttal), found those comments prejudicial given the close and contested evidence, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings; several other claims were overruled, precluded by law-of-the-case, or deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress / unlawful arrest (X) | State argued prior rulings and record supported denial of suppression. | Hartman argued arrest/evidence tainted because deputies never filed a probable-cause affidavit. | Barred by law-of-the-case/issue preclusion; assignment overruled. |
| Double jeopardy for retrial after reversal (VII) | State: reversal was for trial error (inadmissible evidence), not insufficiency, so retrial permitted. | Hartman: retrial violated double jeopardy because first conviction rested on insufficient evidence (or acquittal of underlying means). | Retrial not barred; double jeopardy claim precluded where insufficiency was not raised on first appeal; VII overruled. |
| Double jeopardy based on special verdict acquitting some underlying intended offenses (VI) | State: single aggravated burglary charge — jury’s choice of means does not equal acquittal of the charge. | Hartman: special verdict indicated acquittal of other intended offenses, barring retrial on those theories. | Not analogous to lesser-included cases; no acquittal of the aggravated-burglary charge; VI overruled. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (XIII) | State contended closing and rebuttal comments were proper inferences and argument. | Hartman argued prosecutor repeatedly denigrated defense, accused witnesses and counsel of lying, and expressed personal opinions, depriving him of a fair trial. | Sustained: prosecutor’s repeated personal attacks and assertions of lies were improper and, given the close evidence and lack of curative instruction, prejudicial. Case reversed in part and remanded. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence / Crim.R. 29 (XVII) | State argued evidence (Leightons’ testimony, Hartman’s statements) was sufficient to show trespass and intent. | Hartman argued entry was privileged (open-door visits) and privilege not revoked; evidence insufficient. | Denial of Crim.R. 29 is reviewed de novo; viewing State's evidence in prosecution’s favor, sufficient evidence existed to support trespass and aggravated burglary; assignment overruled as to sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (defines law-of-the-case doctrine)
- State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (2009) (double jeopardy and retrial after reversal for trial error vs. insufficiency)
- State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425 (1996) (double jeopardy protections summarized)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (prosecutorial comments accusing defense/lies can be reversible error)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard review)